IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Saturday, August 10, 2024
1 AM, August 10
01:23 schestowitz[TR2]; http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/08/guestpost-court-of-appeals-latest-ai.html?showComment=1723133192986#c5643543166335034700
01:23 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | [GuestPost] The Court of Appeal's latest AI decision begs the question - what inventions are deserving of patent protection? - The IPKat
01:23 schestowitz[TR2]; "The law isn't clear at all and the various Emotional Perception Hey Hi (AI) decisions highlight that fact. For example, according to the latest decision, a neural network 'however it is implemented is clearly a computer it is a machine for processing information' (68). So, a new neural network architecture is (clearly) a new computer, not a new program for a computer, and new computers (e.g. new neural network architectu
01:23 schestowitz[TR2]; res) are not excluded from patentability, nor are new methods of manufacturing computers (e.g. neural network pruning techniques and neural architecture search techniques). This is not inline with the original Hey Hi (AI) guidance published by the UK-IPO, previous CoA decisions, or EPO practice. This can be taken further: a binary search algorithm is a computer because, like the neural network algorithm (or indeed any algorithm),
01:23 schestowitz[TR2]; it is a machine for processing information that can be represented using 'nodes' and 'links'; therefore, a new binary search algorithm is a new computer, not a new program for a computer, and does not engage the program exclusion.<br /><br />The problem is not with the letter of the law, it is with the office and courts interpretation of it. As mentioned in my earlier comment, in order to exclude certain things from patentability
01:23 schestowitz[TR2]; , the offices and courts use non-standard definitions for various computer science terms. If the law was interpreted using GCSE computer science definitions of program, computer, and algorithm, it wouldn't be such a mess.<br /><br />Whether computer-implemented inventions are the sort of things one should be able to get a patent monopoly for is a separate point. It is a significant policy decision that should not be left to the p
01:23 schestowitz[TR2]; atent monopoly office. I am not convinced that the current interpretation of the law by the office can be justified on the basis that tech companies are 'free to operate'. They are not. The exclusion doesn't stop patents being granted for Hey Hi (AI) inventions, it just massively complicates the process, introducing a lot of uncertainty and cost. I don't see how this benefits anyone."
01:23 schestowitz[TR2]; http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/08/guestpost-court-of-appeals-latest-ai.html?showComment=1723124682630#c7376575910943079937
01:23 schestowitz[TR2]; "You argue that it is difficult to imagine what a claim bitten by the program exclusion (interpreted in accordance with standard definitions) might look like, just as it is difficult to imagine what a claim to any other literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work might look like, but this highlights exactly where you misunderstand how the exclusions are applied. A patent monopoly to a literary work is not engaged only
01:23 schestowitz[TR2]; by a claim 1 that simply recites a story. The exclusion would, and should, still bite if claim 1 is A book comprising a plurality of pages having a story thereon, the story comprising a beginning, a middle and an end, characterized in that the story includes [insert novel and non-obvious literary device]. The courts favour substance over form. (As an aside, this is something which patent monopoly attorneys often fail to appre
01:23 schestowitz[TR2]; ciate, with a tendency to purely focus on minutiae and technicalities while ignoring the bigger picture.) Evidently, the substance of my claim to a book is a literary work that should not be patented according to the clear intent of the legislator. Adding some notorious paper pages should not render the book patentable and there needs to be some way of throwing out such claims. The EPO chooses to do so under inventive step while th
01:23 schestowitz[TR2]; e UK courts choose to do so up front by stripping out the form and looking at the substance of the claim. The end result is not that different. But your argument in respect of computer programs requires such a literal reading of the legislation that it renders the legislative intent worthless and thus cannot be correct. There needs to be a more holistic approach than your argument, which seems to be analogous to claim 1 is not a
01:23 schestowitz[TR2]; literary work as such because it includes some extra physical requirements like pages so my non-obvious claim to a book should be allowed."
01:23 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | [GuestPost] The Court of Appeal's latest AI decision begs the question - what inventions are deserving of patent protection? - The IPKat
01:23 schestowitz[TR2]; http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/08/guestpost-court-of-appeals-latest-ai.html?showComment=1723114269007#c2558888490488773432
01:23 schestowitz[TR2]; "This is going to be unpopular view but it is said in good faith. <br /><br />The law is very clear and has been for some time. G1/19 and the CoA were just reminding us of that fact. <br /><br />The high court decision departed from the status quo and actually disadvantaged those who decided not to file knowing their competitors were also bound by the same law. <br /><br />One of the ironies in this case is that emotional perceptio
01:23 schestowitz[TR2]; n presumably had and will have FTO due to the lack of patents in this area. <br /><br />This case and the exclusions beg the question whether patents are needed at all. There has been no shortage of software innovation in the last 5 decades in spite of the patent monopoly carrot that is allegedly needed. We can only speculate what might have happened were there more patents in play. <br /><br />Removing the exclusions primarily ben
01:23 schestowitz[TR2]; efits the patenting process, but that alone isnt a good reason to change the law."
01:24 schestowitz[TR2]; http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/08/guestpost-court-of-appeals-latest-ai.html?showComment=1723107304820#c606281454824045362
01:24 schestowitz[TR2]; "I agree entirely with the point 'As a captive can develop affection for their captor, we are in thrall to the technical contribution and sometimes this familiarity means that we fail to question whether it really makes sense It seems like such an arbitrary place to draw the line.' It really doesn't make sense. Its roots lie a conflation between the concepts of program and algorithm.<br /><br />According to standard definitio
01:24 schestowitz[TR2]; ns, a neural network is not a computer and it is not a program for a computer; it is an algorithm. The neural network algorithm may be implemented in hardware (i.e. without a computer and without a program for the computer) or software (i.e. with a computer and a program for the computer). This straightforward explanation would be agreed without qualification by any computer scientist, yet it is problematic for patent monopoly pr
01:24 schestowitz[TR2]; ofessionals because it highlights that there is in fact a distinction between 'algorithm' and 'program': it follows from this distinction that the 'new' thing claimed by a computer-implemented invention claim is a new algorithm, not a new program for a computer, so the program exclusion should not bite. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine what a claim bitten by the program exclusion (interpreted in accordance with standard definiti
01:24 schestowitz[TR2]; ons) might look like, just as it is difficult to imagine what a claim to any other literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work might look like. Therefore, in order to exclude Emotional Perception AI's invention, the patent monopoly offices and courts need to apply non-standard (and nonsensical) definitions of 'computer', 'hardware', 'program', and 'technology'. It has to be asked, why!? Does the tech sector (TRIPS!?) benefit fr
01:24 schestowitz[TR2]; om the burden of additional complexity and uncertainty?<br /><br />I wrote about the non-standard definitions of 'hardware', 'program', and 'technology' here: https://whereistheprogram.wordpress.com/2024/04/08/emotional-perception-ai-the-fallacy-of-equivocation-and-original-sin/ <br /><br />I wrote about the non-standard definition of computer here: https://whereistheprogram.wordpress.com/2023/12/01/emotional-perception-ai-and-refl
01:24 schestowitz[TR2]; ections-on-gales-application-where-is-the-computer-where-is-the-program-and-where-is-the-submarine/"
01:24 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | [GuestPost] The Court of Appeal's latest AI decision begs the question - what inventions are deserving of patent protection? - The IPKat
01:24 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | [GuestPost] The Court of Appeal's latest AI decision begs the question - what inventions are deserving of patent protection? - The IPKat
01:24 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-whereistheprogram.wordpress.com | Emotional Perception AI: The Fallacy of Equivocation and Original Sin Where is the program!?
01:24 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-whereistheprogram.wordpress.com | Emotional Perception AI and reflections on Gales Application: where is the computer, where is the program, and where is the submarine? Where is the program!?
01:48 *CAPYBAROM has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
01:50 *vizimajac has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds)
2 AM, August 10
02:56 *asusbox has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
02:57 *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
3 AM, August 10
03:35 *rianne (~rianne@v2x87byxv2p3s.irc) has joined #techbytes
03:35 *asusbox (~rianne@v2x87byxv2p3s.irc) has joined #techbytes
03:46 *asusbox has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
03:46 *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
03:50 *asusbox (~rianne@v2x87byxv2p3s.irc) has joined #techbytes
03:50 *rianne (~rianne@v2x87byxv2p3s.irc) has joined #techbytes
7 AM, August 10
07:18 *Blasius (~Blasius@freenode-94n.fcd.2mlqpl.IP) has joined #techbytes
8 AM, August 10
08:43 *Blasius has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds)
08:45 *Blasius (~Blasius@freenode-94n.fcd.2mlqpl.IP) has joined #techbytes
9 AM, August 10
09:39 schestowitz[TR2]; <li>
09:39 schestowitz[TR2]; <h5><a href="https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2024/08/tuxedo-reveal-the-infinityflex-a-fully-foldable-linux-laptop/">TUXEDO reveal the InfinityFlex a fully foldable Linux laptop</a></h5>
09:39 schestowitz[TR2]; <blockquote>
09:39 schestowitz[TR2]; <p>TUXEDO are flexing their hardware chops here with the InfinityFlex, a fully foldable Linux laptop so you can use it wherever and however you want. No that's not drool on my top, honest.</p>
09:39 schestowitz[TR2]; </blockquote>
09:39 schestowitz[TR2]; </li>
09:39 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-TUXEDO reveal the InfinityFlex a fully foldable Linux laptop | GamingOnLinux
10 AM, August 10
10:01 schestowitz[TR2]; <li>
10:01 schestowitz[TR2]; <h5><a href="https://pointieststick.com/2024/08/09/this-week-in-kde-svg-breeze-cursors-and-more-thumbnails/">This week in KDE: SVG Breeze cursors and more thumbnails</a></h5>
10:01 schestowitz[TR2]; <blockquote>
10:01 schestowitz[TR2]; <p>On the subject of cross-desktop specs, KDE apps now does support the cross-desktop thumbnailer spec, meaning that any of these thumbnailers already on the system will now instantly start working! One of the most notable examples would be the STL file thumbnailer, which will be a boon for anyone working with 3D models or 3D printers. This work was done by Akseli Lahtinen and lands i
10:01 schestowitz[TR2]; n KDE Frameworks 6.6. You can read about it more in this blog post. </p>
10:01 schestowitz[TR2]; </blockquote>
10:01 schestowitz[TR2]; </li>
10:01 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-pointieststick.com | This week in KDE: SVG Breeze cursors and more thumbnails Adventures in Linux and KDE
10:02 *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
10:04 *jacobk (~quassel@rr2rh58ht72yy.irc) has joined #techbytes
11 AM, August 10
11:17 *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
11:26 schestowitz[TR2]; <li>
11:26 schestowitz[TR2]; <h5><a href="https://linuxiac.com/kde-frameworks-6-5-0-is-out/">KDE Frameworks 6.5.0 Is Out, Heres Whats New</a></h5>
11:26 schestowitz[TR2]; <blockquote>
11:26 schestowitz[TR2]; <p>Over a month after the previous 6.4.0 release, KDE announced the launch of Frameworks 6.5.0, expanding its collection of addon libraries to Qt and enhancing functionality available to developers across various platforms. </p>
11:26 schestowitz[TR2]; </blockquote>
11:26 schestowitz[TR2]; </li>
11:26 schestowitz[TR2];
11:26 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-linuxiac.com | KDE Frameworks 6.5.0 Is Out, Heres Whats New
11:27 *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@9dbcu4348vvde.irc) has joined #techbytes
11:27 schestowitz[TR2]; <li>
11:27 schestowitz[TR2]; <h5><a href="https://linuxiac.com/cosmic-desktop-alpha-released/">COSMIC Desktop Alpha Released, Expectations Exceeded</a></h5>
11:27 schestowitz[TR2]; <blockquote>
11:27 schestowitz[TR2]; <p>COSMIC! This name has become increasingly popular in the open-source community over the past year, raising high expectations. Now, more than two years after System76 unexpectedly announced its bold plan to create a new desktop environment written in Rust programming language from scratch, users can finally try it out. And let me tell you, the wait was worth it. </p>
11:27 schestowitz[TR2]; <p> We recently tested the alpha version of COSMIC, and our initial thoughts can be summed up most briefly with this: its a game-changer! Above all, it is incredibly fast. And when I say fast, I dont just mean fast its fast in the blink of an eye. With that said, lets now move on to the possibilities the COSMIC alpha version has in store. </p>
11:27 schestowitz[TR2]; </blockquote>
11:27 schestowitz[TR2]; </li>
11:27 schestowitz[TR2];
11:27 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-linuxiac.com | COSMIC Desktop Alpha Released, Expectations Exceeded
noon, August 10
12:50 *IsambardPrince has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
2 PM, August 10
14:01 *psydroid2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
14:02 *psydroid2 (~psydroid@j9gt2haw74jrk.irc) has joined #techbytes
14:10 *psydroid2 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.2.4 Quasar http://www.kvirc.net/)
14:12 *psydroid2 (~psydroid@j9gt2haw74jrk.irc) has joined #techbytes
14:21 *psydroid3 (~psydroid@j9gt2haw74jrk.irc) has joined #techbytes
3 PM, August 10
15:06 *psydroid3 has quit (connection closed)
15:13 *psydroid3 (~psydroid@j9gt2haw74jrk.irc) has joined #techbytes
15:37 *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
15:41 *psydroid|2 (~psydroid@j9gt2haw74jrk.irc) has joined #techbytes
5 PM, August 10
17:25 *jacobk (~quassel@dt7mrnex4e9nw.irc) has joined #techbytes
17:30 *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
17:35 *jacobk (~quassel@dt7mrnex4e9nw.irc) has joined #techbytes
17:51 *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
7 PM, August 10
19:10 *jacobk (~quassel@dt7mrnex4e9nw.irc) has joined #techbytes
19:44 *schestowitz-TR has quit (*.net *.split)
19:44 *rsheftel1435 has quit (*.net *.split)
19:45 *rsheftel1435 (~rsheftel@freenode-ims.ilv.1cipql.IP) has joined #techbytes
19:45 *schestowitz-TR (~acer-box@freenode/user/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes
19:59 *jacobk has quit (connection closed)
9 PM, August 10
21:05 *IsambardPrince (~isambardprince@uv27a6cvmtqf6.irc) has joined #techbytes
21:09 *Disconnected (Connection timed out).
21:09 *Now talking on #techbytes
21:26 *parsifal (~parsifal@6thegygyadsu4.irc) has joined #techbytes
21:27 *parsifal has quit (Quit: Leaving)
21:56 *psydroid2 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.0.0 Aria http://www.kvirc.net/)
21:57 *psydroid3 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.0.0 Aria http://www.kvirc.net/)
21:59 *psydroid|2 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.2.4 Quasar http://www.kvirc.net/)
21:59 *psydroid2 (~psydroid@j9gt2haw74jrk.irc) has joined #techbytes
10 PM, August 10
22:14 *jacobk (~quassel@rr2rh58ht72yy.irc) has joined #techbytes
22:38 *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
22:40 *jacobk (~quassel@rr2rh58ht72yy.irc) has joined #techbytes
11 PM, August 10
23:01 schestowitz[TR2]; http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/08/guestpost-court-of-appeals-latest-ai.html?showComment=1723125038853#c6837884152203030527
23:01 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | [GuestPost] The Court of Appeal's latest AI decision begs the question - what inventions are deserving of patent protection? - The IPKat
23:01 schestowitz[TR2]; "This is a very nice article, but if you wish to ask the broader question of what types of invention are worthy of patent monopoly protection, then perhaps the (policy) purpose of the exclusion for computer programs also needs to be analysed. The software/computer field has its own R&D structure and economics which will govern how investment in the field will happen and what sort of activities remain free of patent monopoly pro
23:01 schestowitz[TR2]; tection. The legislators clearly wanted a patent-free area for computer programs and software to be developed, and Birss might have been mindful of this when deciding on the matter at the Court of Appeal. To undermine (reduce) an exclusion is a serious matter, and legislator's intent is important to keep in mind when doing so."
23:01 schestowitz[TR2]; "The law is clear. Technical contribution in UK or solving a technical problem at EPO is all thats needed. What is or is not technical is a matter of judgment but there is enough case law out there to predict the likely outcome. The edge cases are few and far between. <br /><br />Had this case been about a better computer in line with Symbian or Fashion Company Apple v HTC, it would have been allowed. It was not and correctly re
23:01 schestowitz[TR2]; fused in line with the clear case law. <br /><br />Specific paragraphs in the judgment dont really change anything in substance. The broader point is that music recommendations is not something worthy of a patent. Its no different to me recommending music to a friend. Using an ANN rightfully doesnt change this. Had the ANN used the underlying hardware in an improved way, then yes a patent monopoly is possible, but the reco
23:01 schestowitz[TR2]; mmendation aspect would have no bearing. Substance over form in action. <br /><br />The law may very well be misinterpreted by the courts in your view, but that doesnt mean it can be ignored. <br /><br />The bar for an Hey Hi (AI) patent monopoly is high and will require technical limitations, which opens up designarounds. Low quality patents to computer programs with no such limitations benefits no one, hence the SCOTUS strikin
23:01 schestowitz[TR2]; g out such patents. Patent attorneys might very well complain but there was wider concerns in allowing low quality software patents bogging down innovation. <br /><br />My FTO point is to do with the status quo. Changing the law changes the FTO position. Judges are rightly concerned with this even though you wont find it in a written decision."
23:02 schestowitz[TR2]; http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/08/guestpost-court-of-appeals-latest-ai.html?showComment=1723196201095#c6201450516408254040
23:02 schestowitz[TR2]; "As anyone who listens to the radio knows, if someone states that something is clear, it is usually anything but.<br /><br />Host:Why is it that the patent monopoly office interprets the word program to mean algorithm when these are categorically distinct things. Doesnt the as such wording of the exclusion explicitly prohibit interpreting the exclusions to cover things other than those listed? This seems to
23:02 schestowitz[TR2]; be causing a lot of confusion, uncertainty, and expense for technology companies.<br />A:TRIPS is very clear that patents will be granted for any inventions in all fields of technology.<br />Host:The technology sector, academia, and science more generally consider algorithms to be technology. Why does the patent monopoly office disagree?<br />B:The office has been very clear on this: algorithms are not technology because tech
23:02 schestowitz[TR2]; nology is something that has technical character.<br />Host:You didnt answer the question ...<br />B:If you would let me finish: technical character results from the use of technical means.<br />Host:What?<br />B:I have been absolutely clear: technical means have a technical purpose.<br />Host:Are you broken?<br />B:Look, I have always been and will continue to be absolutely clear about this: technical purpose means a te
23:02 schestowitz[TR2]; chnical problem is being solved.<br />Host:<br />B:<br />Host:<br />B:Technology is whatever the patent monopoly office decides to grant a patent monopoly for."
23:02 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | [GuestPost] The Court of Appeal's latest AI decision begs the question - what inventions are deserving of patent protection? - The IPKat
23:03 schestowitz[TR2]; http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/08/guestpost-court-of-appeals-latest-ai.html?showComment=1723196288257#c8288193922705654730
23:03 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | [GuestPost] The Court of Appeal's latest AI decision begs the question - what inventions are deserving of patent protection? - The IPKat
23:03 schestowitz[TR2]; "Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, the purpose of the paragraphs is to justify the decision. If those paragraphs dont make technical sense, the decision is not justified. I find it disappointing that so many seem so willing to ignore palpable mistakes in reasoning provided that the resulting decision is what they expected/desired. Rule of lawyers replacing rule of law.<br /><br />Secondly, the paragraphs set precedent th
23:03 schestowitz[TR2]; at must be followed - for example, UK Statutory Guidance has now been updated to state that an ANN is a computer. Therefore, the specific paragraph I quoted unquestionably changed things. I have already filed several responses along the lines of: neural networks are computers, and the claimed neural network architecture is not known; therefore, the contribution is a new computer architecture; and new computers are not ex
23:03 schestowitz[TR2]; cluded from patentability. I suspect this is the sort of thing you would consider not worthy of a patent, but the law is the law and it is clear, right?"
23:03 schestowitz[TR2]; http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/08/fishy-evidence-do-we-have-right.html?showComment=1723213099465#c9152744618112452923
23:03 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Fishy evidence: Do we have the right sufficiency standard for therapeutic use? (T 1057/22) - The IPKat
23:03 schestowitz[TR2]; "The interaction between plausibility and evidential burden of an opponent remains complex. The question is does the opponent simply have to show the data in the patent monopoly is weak or does it have to provide actual evidence (data) of lack of efficacy of the therapeutic agent? Here the board decided they needed evidence. See quote from decision below:<br /><br />"3.2.4 Moreover, there is no evidence on file to support the
23:03 schestowitz[TR2]; respondent's allegation that choosing any of these explicitly proposed juices might fail to achieve the claimed therapeutic effects. The respondent has not submitted any such evidence, for example, in the form of experimental data. In this context, the board disagrees with the statement given in the decision under appeal that a skilled person would not know which juice to choose. As outlined above, the board is of the opinion that
23:03 schestowitz[TR2]; a skilled person is provided with ample guidance as to suitable juices to be used."<br /><br />If the opponent doesn't file evidence on sufficiency/enablement, they risk the board deciding against them essentially due to a 'lack of effort'. Boards do not like laziness on the part of any of the parties in front of them, and decisions often reflect that. Here the opponent took the risk and lost"
23:09 schestowitz[TR2]; http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/08/guestpost-court-of-appeals-latest-ai.html?showComment=1723151487602#c8501162271212586629
23:09 schestowitz[TR2]; "On the topic of legislative intent, whilst much is obscured, the Lords did state that the reason for the particular positioning of program in the list of exclusions was:<br /><br />to ensure that ... the exclusion will bite only on so-called computer software and not on programs which may be embodied in the hardware (The Earl of HALSBURY)<br /><br />Other Lords were concerned the positioning wouldn't prevent this mistake from bein
23:09 schestowitz[TR2]; g made, and proposed explicitly defining program to ensure that the courts did not later confuse:<br /><br />programs written in high-level programming languages, coded instructions and so forth, all of which is symbolic, and engineering activity which is producing ... programmed hardware ... which is not symbolic. In the words of the European Patent Convention, the latter is "susceptible of industrial application" (Lord
23:09 schestowitz[TR2]; IRONSIDE)<br /><br />There is a lot of foresight in the Lords debates - for example:<br /><br />sooner or later some judicial pronouncement has to he made on what is a purely technological matter (The Earl of HALSBURY)<br /><br />Therefore, as far as the legislative intent can be determined, it is that program means program (symbolic/literary work), not algorithm (technology). Indeed, the qualification of 'as such' is a strong in
23:09 schestowitz[TR2]; dicator that program means program, not something else."
23:09 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | [GuestPost] The Court of Appeal's latest AI decision begs the question - what inventions are deserving of patent protection? - The IPKat